Re: [OPSAWG] [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

It's not being used for internal devices, please re-read the draft.  It is to enable NAT444 to allow the delivery of IPv4 services, after run-out, using NAT444, to act as the v4 substrate between a CPE supporting 1918 to the customer, and the public internet.

	Chris

On 12Nov2010, at 17.24, Sam Silvester wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> A nit here, but the ask is for a /10.
> 
> I've had a read of the draft. Why a /10 (or whatever length?) - where
> did this come from?
> 
> Assuming you're going to use this space for "internal devices" that
> aren't capable of IPv6, it seems arbitrary.
> 
> I've heard comments that many ISPs are using many instances of RFC1918
> address space for this purpose. You state the goal is to avoid clashes
> with RFC1918 addressing on the customer side of the CPE - why not just
> use your already allocated public space, using multiple instances and
> the like to re-use a smaller block to scale to the required number of
> addresses between your CPE WAN interfaces and the Big Ugly NAT Box?
> 
> Basically, it seems like a /10 might be fine for a number of carriers,
> but not for others - as such it seems a hack to assign it and use a
> "one size fits most" approach.
> 
> As such, I don't support this.
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area